Better question than whether we should leave the SEC

[18IsTheMan]

We’re obviously never voluntarily giving up the gravy train, but would we survive contraction?

Already been bandied about as conferences have grown that they might actually eventually contract and cut the bottom feeders so they can concentrate revenue with the teams that actually bring in revenue.

Revenue is king, and we’re paid quite handsomely for not contributing all that much.

 

[Tngamecock]

We’re obviously never voluntarily giving up the gravy train, but would we survive contraction?

Already been bandied about as conferences have grown that they might actually eventually contract and cut the bottom feeders so they can concentrate revenue with the teams that actually bring in revenue.

Revenue is king, and we’re paid quite handsomely for not contributing all that much.

Dude…stop your passive aggressive shtick

 

[18IsTheMan]

Dude…stop your passive aggressive shtick

Passive aggressive is not the correct description.

Anyway, it’s just a question.

 

[Evilchicken]

We haven’t contributed? We’ve been successful in several major sports. And given the meteoric rise of women’s bball, I’d say the SEC loves that marketing.

 

[gamecockcleo]

We are not going back to the ACC so forget about it. We are going to continue in the best conference in America, even if we never win the SEC or win a natty. I know this if you continue to have a inferiority complex you will always lose because of being negative. Who wants always feel less than and not continue to fight. Quitters never win and winners never quit

 

[SuperCock99]

Our problem is that we are THE premier College with all the tools and resources in the world to compete in the SEC….. So we don’t fit into a conference like the Sunbelt, which is the level we play. But we have buffoons Tanner and the BOT running things which is the problem.

 

[Atlanta Cock]

We haven’t contributed? We’ve been successful in several major sports. And given the meteoric rise of women’s bball, I’d say the SEC loves that marketing.

WBB? You care only bc we're good and it's all we got.

 

[atl-cock]

We’re obviously never voluntarily giving up the gravy train, but would we survive contraction?

Already been bandied about as conferences have grown that they might actually eventually contract and cut the bottom feeders so they can concentrate revenue with the teams that actually bring in revenue.

Revenue is king, and we’re paid quite handsomely for not contributing all that much.

Um, we did when we left the ACC.

 

[atl-cock]

We are not going back to the ACC so forget about it. We are going to continue in the best conference in America, even if we never win the SEC or win a natty. I know this if you continue to have a inferiority complex you will always lose because of being negative. Who wants always feel less than and not continue to fight. Quitters never win and winners never quit

I've mentioned this before, but It's my understanding that about 20 years ago when the ACC was busy poaching the Big East (of the day), they quietly checked in with USC to see if we were interested in coming back. They were 20 years too late with that one.

 

[atl-cock]

We’re obviously never voluntarily giving up the gravy train, but would we survive contraction?

Already been bandied about as conferences have grown that they might actually eventually contract and cut the bottom feeders so they can concentrate revenue with the teams that actually bring in revenue.

Revenue is king, and we’re paid quite handsomely for not contributing all that much.

No league is going to boot out a member in good standing except for egregious behaviour on that school's part.

The way to accomplish contraction is for "10-12 members" to leave and start their own conference. Both the SEC and ACC were formed from members leaving the bloated SoCon - 13 to form the SEC in 1933, and 7 to form the ACC in 1953 (UVA is not a charter ACC member - they were invited and joined late in 1953).

 

[18IsTheMan]

No league is going to boot out a member in good standing except for egregious behaviour on that school's part.

The way to accomplish contraction is for "10-12 members" to leave and start their own conference. Both the SEC and ACC were formed from members leaving the bloated SoCon - 13 to form the SEC in 1933, and 7 to form the ACC in 1953 (UVA is not a charter ACC member - they were invited and joined late in 1953).

None of the the old paradigms matter anymore.

The landscape is going to continue shifting far beyond the latest rounds or realignment. At some point schools like Alabama, UGA, OSU and Michigan will begin wondering why their revenue share is the same as schools like South Carolina, Mississippi State, Rutgers, Northwestern, etc. It's inevitable.

There's no loyalty. The bottom line is the bottom line. Oregon and Oregon State were together since 1915 and Oregon didn't think for a split second before screwing Oregon State over. Same goes for Washing and Washington State. That decision was a non contraction but it was purely a revenue-based decision with zero consideration for loyalty. You think the SEC is loyal to us?

Ubben: When college football conferences stop adding, the next step is ugly but obvious

As the past few months have especially proved, the financial bottom line is the most important scoreboard in college football.

www.nytimes.com

Contraction according to this article: "It’s the nuclear option in the future of conference membership, a “press only in event of emergency” eject button. But when the two biggest conferences run out of expansion options, contraction will be the only option to make sure the revenues continue to grow."

We have nearly reached that point, pending the outcome with ACC. The ACC and SEC are out of expansion options until the dust settles with the ACC. If those teams are eventually divvied up between the two conferences, contraction will be the next step.

Mark it down.

 

[18IsTheMan]

Um, we did when we left the ACC.

I'm speaking of modern, relevant college football. Revenue was inconsequential back then, which is why we could choose to leave over some petty grievances.

 

[18IsTheMan]

We haven’t contributed? We’ve been successful in several major sports. And given the meteoric rise of women’s bball, I’d say the SEC loves that marketing.

Not one single decision regarding conference realignment has been made with any sport in mind other than college football.

 

[Uscg1984]

Contraction may be one of those things that sounds more profitable on paper than it plays out in reality. On the one hand, you cut out the "bottom feeders" as the OP calls them, to focus on the "big" names that generate the big TV audiences. On the other hand, if you cut those teams free, you probably lose entire fanbases who were previously rabid college football fans. I know if the Gamecocks were left out of whatever the future of college football looks like, I'd cease to give a crap about college football. I know the same is probably true for fans of other schools left on the outside looking in. We're going to see some of that with the conference realignments anyway and it won't be good for the future of college football.

 

[Harvard Gamecock]

There have been several articles written of how the legacy schools along with networks would start to begin negotiations in
regard to revenue disbursements on a sliding scale. To break it down schools such as OSU, Michigan, Bama, UGA, etc would receive more monies while the mid/lower level, Indiana, Maryland, Arkansas, and yes us receiving lower distributions.
So a contraction, but not to the extreme of eliminating teams from a conference.

 

[Blues man]

We’re obviously never voluntarily giving up the gravy train, but would we survive contraction?

Already been bandied about as conferences have grown that they might actually eventually contract and cut the bottom feeders so they can concentrate revenue with the teams that actually bring in revenue.

Revenue is king, and we’re paid quite handsomely for not contributing all that much.

Trying to figure out what is meant by "contributing". I assume being competitive or successful is less of a driving factor than being inside a desirable TV market. So if money is king does success matter?

 

[18IsTheMan]

Contraction may be one of those things that sounds more profitable on paper than it plays out in reality. On the one hand, you cut out the "bottom feeders" as the OP calls them, to focus on the "big" names that generate the big TV audiences. On the other hand, if you cut those teams free, you probably lose entire fanbases who were previously rabid college football fans. I know if the Gamecocks were left out of whatever the future of college football looks like, I'd cease to give a crap about college football. I know the same is probably true for fans of other schools left on the outside looking in. We're going to see some of that with the conference realignments anyway and it won't be good for the future of college football.

I'm sure all options are being looked at. They will do whatever helps the bottom line the most. One thing I've learned with all the realignment, NIL and portal stuff is that no idea is too wacky to come to fruition.

I do think some of our fans have a misperception about how important we are to the SEC. Maybe I'm wrong, but we're not an SEC power or blue blood or charter member. I don't think they'd have any qualms dropping us if/when contraction becomes a thing.

 

[LazyIslander]

You cannot have a conference comprised solely of winning programs. Someone has to lose games.

 

[18IsTheMan]

You cannot have a conference comprised solely of winning programs. Someone has to lose games.

It's not just about the winning. It's about which schools are responsible for the revenue. Certain schools, even when they are down, like UT or UF, are still more valuable from the revenue perspective than we are.

As Harvard noted, it could result in a form of unequal revenue distribution, though outright contraction has surely been bandied about. If you were Alabama, would you think it makes sense that Vandy, who has won 3 conference games total since the 2019 season gets the exact same amount as Bama from the SEC payout?

Some fans think these schools care about each other on some level, but they don't (see Oregon and Oregon St.). When revenue is at stake, there is zero loyalty or camaraderie.

 

[Cluster Cock]

There have been several articles written of how the legacy schools along with networks would start to begin negotiations in
regard to revenue disbursements on a sliding scale. To break it down schools such as OSU, Michigan, Bama, UGA, etc would receive more monies while the mid/lower level, Indiana, Maryland, Arkansas, and yes us receiving lower distributions.
So a contraction, but not to the extreme of eliminating teams from a conference.

Financially punishing the "bottom feeders" would only widen the gap. No schools would agree to that. That's like giving the Super Bowl winning team the first pick in the draft every year.

 

[18IsTheMan]

Financially punishing the "bottom feeders" would only widen the gap. No schools would agree to that. That's like giving the Super Bowl winning team the first pick in the draft every year.

Schools may not have to agree to it.

 

[Harvard Gamecock]

Financially punishing the "bottom feeders" would only widen the gap. No schools would agree to that. That's like giving the Super Bowl winning team the first pick in the draft every year.

First let me say this is not my idea and or proposal, Second, It is easy to conceive that a proposal is put out in a "take it or leave it" scenario. At that point what other options are available ?

 

[18IsTheMan]

First let me say this is not my idea and or proposal, Second, It is easy to conceive that a proposal is put out in a "take it or leave it" scenario. At that point what other options are available ?

I don't know how likely contraction is to happen or soon it would happen if it did happen.

I just know there is nothing inconceivable in this era of college sports. If you had told me 20 years ago that players would be able to earn 6 or 7 figures in college, transfer as many times as they want, that SoCal would be in the Big 10 and Stanford would be in the ACC, I'd have laughed in your face.

 

[KingWard]

I'm inclined to believe we would not be "contracted". We are the flagship university of a state that has a greater population than all but five of the other states in the latest SEC footprint. We also have significant enrollment - sixth largest in the "new" SEC. I think we're good.

 

[Benjdan]

Since we are talking about delusional hypotheticals… USC, CU, ECU, CCU, App St, UNC, NC State, Duke, Wake Forest. Pick a tenth, El Cid? Carolina Conference.

 

[18IsTheMan]

I'm inclined to believe we would not be "contracted". We are the flagship university of a state that has a greater population than all but five of the other states in the latest SEC footprint. We also have significant enrollment - sixth largest in the "new" SEC. I think we're good.

Say the ACC does indeed split up and Clemson ends up in the SEC, which I believe is inevitable. If contraction happened after that point, are we not expendable? Clemson is, unquestionably, the better brand. Same state.

 

[18IsTheMan]

Since we are talking about delusional hypotheticals… USC, CU, ECU, CCU, App St, UNC, NC State, Duke, Wake Forest. Pick a tenth, El Cid? Carolina Conference.

We live in a world where SoCal is in the Big 10 and Stanford is in the ACC. Delusional only means it's likely to happen.

 

[KingWard]

Say the ACC does indeed split up and Clemson ends up in the SEC, which I believe is inevitable. If contraction happened after that point, are we not expendable? Clemson is, unquestionably, the better brand. Same state.

This is mainly driven by football. Every conference has bottom-dwellers in football. I also don't think that either Indiana or Purdue will be "contracted" from the B1G.

 

[18IsTheMan]

Another good read on the subject. Of conference realignment, it asks:

"But why stop there?

At what point do networks decide they’re done paying for Purdue and Indiana to get Ohio State and Michigan in the Big Ten? When do Georgia and Alabama look across the table during an SEC meeting at Missouri and Mississippi State and ask, “What would you say you do here?”'

Column: It's not conference realignment. It's consolidation and no one is safe in the dash for cash

Conference realignment should be called college football consolidation because that's what's happening.

apnews.com

As the article says, this is not realignment, it's consolidation in a dash for cash. Why WOULD it stop with realignment? It doesn't make any sense to think that realignment is the end of the road.

 

[Uscg1984]

I'm sure all options are being looked at. They will do whatever helps the bottom line the most.

No doubt. I think the question is whether they will sacrifice long-term profits and popularity for short-term profits. Unfortunately, I think we all know the likely answer to that question as they have consistently worked to turn college football into a professional product. They may make a ton of money over the next 10 years, but in 30 years, once college football has become the AAA farm system for the NFL, the games will be played in front of AAA-sized crowds.

 

[KingWard]

Say the ACC does indeed split up and Clemson ends up in the SEC, which I believe is inevitable. If contraction happened after that point, are we not expendable? Clemson is, unquestionably, the better brand. Same state.

I'm taking the "under" on contraction straight down the line.

 

[Lurker123]

I'm taking the "under" on contraction straight down the line.

I would agree. I would not bet against the sliding scale for revenue though.

 

[Dutch Cock]

You cannot have a conference comprised solely of winning programs. Someone has to lose games.

And become the bottom feeders.

 

[Tngamecock]

This is mainly driven by football. Every conference has bottom-dwellers in football. I also don't think that either Indiana or Purdue will be "contracted" from the B1G.

Why bother…..18 loves to post any degrading thing he can about SC under the guise of a question. Once someone interacts, he takes the bash SC side under the ruse of healthy discussion.

 

[Baltcock96]

I envision what will wind up happening as it pertains to major sports is that there won’t necessarily be contraction but the power 4 forming a separate league and creating geographic divisions with cross divisional play.

 

[18IsTheMan]

I envision what will wind up happening as it pertains to major sports is that there won’t necessarily be contraction but the power 4 forming a separate league and creating geographic divisions with cross divisional play.

I have seen that speculated. Once all the dust settles, they'll go back to regional matchups, which would be humorous coming of full circle.

In the industry where I work, this kind of things happens. There will be a major reorganization and the folks who have been around a while will say "oh, yeah, this is how it used to be 20 years ago".

 

[Cocky Hobbit]

We haven’t contributed? We’ve been successful in several major sports. And given the meteoric rise of women’s bball, I’d say the SEC loves that marketing.

Thus endeth the lesson! Spot on!

 

[Cocky Hobbit]

Our problem is that we are THE premier College with all the tools and resources in the world to compete in the SEC….. So we don’t fit into a conference like the Sunbelt, which is the level we play. But we have buffoons Tanner and the BOT running things which is the problem.

Would you prefer Auburn's BOT? Doubt it.

 

[Tngamecock]

You all realize this is only 18s creation. The question that is.

 

[atl-cock]

None of the the old paradigms matter anymore.

The landscape is going to continue shifting far beyond the latest rounds or realignment. At some point schools like Alabama, UGA, OSU and Michigan will begin wondering why their revenue share is the same as schools like South Carolina, Mississippi State, Rutgers, Northwestern, etc. It's inevitable.

There's no loyalty. The bottom line is the bottom line. Oregon and Oregon State were together since 1915 and Oregon didn't think for a split second before screwing Oregon State over. Same goes for Washing and Washington State. That decision was a non contraction but it was purely a revenue-based decision with zero consideration for loyalty. You think the SEC is loyal to us?

Ubben: When college football conferences stop adding, the next step is ugly but obvious

As the past few months have especially proved, the financial bottom line is the most important scoreboard in college football.

www.nytimes.com

Contraction according to this article: "It’s the nuclear option in the future of conference membership, a “press only in event of emergency” eject button. But when the two biggest conferences run out of expansion options, contraction will be the only option to make sure the revenues continue to grow."

We have nearly reached that point, pending the outcome with ACC. The ACC and SEC are out of expansion options until the dust settles with the ACC. If those teams are eventually divvied up between the two conferences, contraction will be the next step.

Mark it down.

You've described schools looking out for their athletic well-being. And while you make a good point, it's not the same thing as kicking out a conference member. I still hold that a conference will not kick out members unless there's been egregious behaviour by the to-be-jettisoned institution; each league likely has bylaws governing such procedures.

I still contend that the process of contraction (if/when it happens) will occur by several schools from different or the same league leaving their league(s) and forming their own conference.